Right. It's the old story about the old man and the Nazis, about how they kept coming for people (the disabled, the communists, the Jews, etc etc) until they came for him, and there was no one left to speak up for him.

To be fair, part of me says that this is more a scare tactic than anything. We've got overcrowding in our prisons right now, and jamming them full of people suspected of terrorism isn't going to help things.

OTOH, why don't we just come out and say it? 90 year-old Grandma from Podunk, KS is not likely to be a terrorist. Achmed Phlegm-for-a-last-name, son of Immigrant Also-Phlegm-for-a-last-name, who came from Iran, is a much more likely suspect.

Yes, but what about domestic terror groups like the Klan, Miltia groups, Eco-Terrorists and such? And how easy is it to move the definition over after one precedent has been set?

A slippery slope is this. Precedent is hard to overturn. Look over some of the people ruined by McCarthy and Nixon in the HUAC (House Un-America Affairs Committe) because they were in a minority or pissed off the wrong group.

I can understand that. But Congress isn't likely to use this to go after homegrown terrorists like the Klan. Not at first, anyways, they'll use it against Muslims and their various assorted terror groups.

Part of me wants to wretch at the civil rights violation that this decision causes. And another part of me wants to say that finally we're doing something about terrorism and the problem that Islam represents.

Because, and people can say that the terrorists are radical Islamics all they want, but Islam is not a religion that stands the acid test of the American culture in my opinion. It is sexist and racist, something that cannot be reconciled with the idea that all human beings are created equal.

Because, and people can say that the terrorists are radical Islamics all they want, but Islam is not a religion that stands the acid test of the American culture in my opinion. It is sexist and racist, something that cannot be reconciled with the idea that all human beings are created equal.

So is Fundamentalist Mormonism, certain brands of Judaism, and a few DOZEN fundamentalist Christian churches. Equality is debatable with all these sects. And some of these groups have definitely done things that fit the burden of Terrorist acts. Such as killing men and women, firebombing clinics and such.

One of the most heinous defenses of civil rights I can think of was the trial to allow the American Nazi party to do a parade through the jewish sections of Skokie Il. You don't have to like the actions, beliefs or outlook of a group, but you have to respect their rights.

Even if those groups don't respect the rights of others? Don't respect the law of the land that they're living in? As the saying goes, your (though I don't mean you specifically, Callie) right to practice what you believe ends an inch in front of my nose.

You want to believe that men are superior to women? Fine. I can work with that. But A: I don't believe that that belief will stand the test of time here in America, and B: you are not allowed to push your beliefs on me. And part of these groups, all of them, is that (IMO) that's part and parcel of their whole deal.

In my own experience, people do not generally use things like terrorism and bombing and violence to get people to believe things that are reasonable sounding. They use terrorism and bombing and violence because they themselves know that most people are not going to willingly subscribe to their beliefs, so they must use force to get them through.

What modern American woman, an intelligent and educated one, do you know who would willingly sign up for what Islam says about women?

While I have already signed a petition against this bill and am most assuredly against it, I am finding a sour taste in my mouth at the blatant hatred against Islam that I have read in here.

I know quite a few men and women that practice Islam and they are not terrorists, they are not pushy about their beliefs, they are not condemning of those around them. They are very nice, polite, respectful and only ask they be treated the same way.

I abhor hearing the prejudice against Islam, just as I hate hearing it against Pagans, Christians, whites, blacks, native americans, Mexicans and any other group of people. Not every Muslim is an extremist. You cannot judge a whole group based on the actions of the extremists. You might not agree with their beliefs, and that is perfectly fine, but to judge and hate roughly 1.5 billion people because of the actions of extremists is just flat wrong.

I agree with Opheliac here. Know what you're talking about before you judge. I don't agree with a lot of Islamic beliefs either, but that's why I don't practice Islam. Most Muslims seem to want to be left alone, and don't force anything on anyone.

That said, it seems like the terrorists have won. The Bill of Rights and freedom is what we Americans pride ourselves in, but these extremists have us throwing it all out the window to feel safer. I forget who said it, but there is a saying that those who would give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither, and I couldn't agree more.

If this passed the Senate, then I expect it will pass the insane Tea Party Republican controlled House with little issue.

I agree with Opheliac here. Know what you're talking about before you judge. I don't agree with a lot of Islamic beliefs either, but that's why I don't practice Islam. Most Muslims seem to want to be left alone, and don't force anything on anyone.

That said, it seems like the terrorists have won. The Bill of Rights and freedom is what we Americans pride ourselves in, but these extremists have us throwing it all out the window to feel safer. I forget who said it, but there is a saying that those who would give up freedoms for temporary security deserve neither, and I couldn't agree more.

If this passed the Senate, then I expect it will pass the insane Tea Party Republican controlled House with little issue.

Already has I think.. the next step is the white house supposedly.

I have worked with SEVERAL Muslims in service and spent several weeks in places like Dubai and Bahrain, particularly during Ramadan. The moderate folks in those regions are kind, polite, tolerant, and given to charity. Charity and helping others is a MAJOR point of faith with them, and I'm ashamed to say that as a culture, the gulf states I've been in the people as a group tend to be more charitable than we as Americans are.

While I have already signed a petition against this bill and am most assuredly against it, I am finding a sour taste in my mouth at the blatant hatred against Islam that I have read in here.

I know quite a few men and women that practice Islam and they are not terrorists, they are not pushy about their beliefs, they are not condemning of those around them. They are very nice, polite, respectful and only ask they be treated the same way.

I abhor hearing the prejudice against Islam, just as I hate hearing it against Pagans, Christians, whites, blacks, native americans, Mexicans and any other group of people. Not every Muslim is an extremist. You cannot judge a whole group based on the actions of the extremists. You might not agree with their beliefs, and that is perfectly fine, but to judge and hate roughly 1.5 billion people because of the actions of extremists is just flat wrong.

Koran, 4:34.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard.

Emphasis mine. I can't help but read that and have alarms of sexism go off in my head. Isn't one of the tenets of equality that anything you can do, I can do too? But this makes it sound like men are inherently better than women.

You don't find this in Judaism. You don't find it in Christianity. Nor in any other major recognized religion in the world (Shinto, Buddhism, Animism) to name a few. Islam is the only religion I know of that does.

But wait, there's more!

In Islam, Muslim women are not allowed to marry anyone but a Muslim man. Period. Muslim men, however, are allowed to marry Muslim women, and women of the 'People of the Book' (ie Jews and Christians), as long as the man doesn't place himself in an inferior position to that woman.

Even after marriage, an Islamic court can rule a marriage dissolved if the woman is unfaithful. Case in point: in India in 2005, a woman turned to an Islamic court, alleging that her father-in-law raped her. The verdict? No punishment for the father-in-law, and the woman's marriage to her husband was dissolved. End of story. No prison, no fine, no punishment whatsoever known.

And this is not radicalism, in my opinion. This is what every Muslim believes, whether active or passive. Even if you don't actively believe it and practice the more distasteful parts yourself, by claiming faith in this religion, you state that you support the ideas and tenets inherent in it.

Allow me to repeat my statement: I do not believe that traditional Islam, as written in the Koran, can long survive contact with the American culture, because of its inherent sexism. Either American culture will change, or Islam will, or one will be removed from the other.

I beg to differ..the bible is FULL of things demanding the submisison of the wife to her husband. With just a quick google I found these.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35* 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

In the defense of more modern and moderate followers of Islam. They tend to get SHOT if they speak out. There is one liberal Ayotollah out there in Iran who has spent the better part of half a decade under house arrest. (1997 to 2003)

Some of his 'crimes' include speaking out about the people's religious rights AND gender equality.

Islam is more than the crazy terrorist in a mask. I have known MANY moderate followers of Islam. The problem is moderate and reasonable doesnt' make for good press here and over there they tend to get shot, kidnapped, tortured and blown up.

Galatians 3:28 (via google) - There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Christianity asks for the submission of wives to their husbands, yes, but because that's what God asks of them. Not because men are somehow inherently superior to women.

And you've just helped me prove my own point - traditional Christianity, as depicted in the Bible, changed itself when long subjected to Western & American culture. The bit in Corinthians about women not speaking in churches is evidence of that. If they were still following the letter of the law as laid down in the New Testament, then there would be a few problems.

And Jesus himself said in the New Testament that the old ways (IE, all the stuff in the Old Testament) had passed away, and that the new covenant of God was through himself and his sacrifice.

And that bit about modern & moderate followers of Islam just goes to further reinforce my argument - traditional Islam, as written in the Koran, is changing because its tenets cannot fit into modern society without some means of compelling people to do so.

I don't expect Islam to change overnight. I don't expect it to be a quick and easy battle. Old traditions die hard. But I do believe that if Muslims want to remain competitive in the modern world, then the beliefs of Islam will change.

I know a LOT of people I went to school with in the sandhills of South Carolina who still follow the Letter of the Bible. They handle snakes, keep their women in dresses and hair and the rest. Not many, but I know enough to know those folk are out there. I had one guy I worked with in the Navy tell me that I was going to hell because I was too tolerant and cited the bible for it. Supposedly I was supposed to put my female workers under him.

He actually quoted some of those verses as justification. Needless to say he didn't get what he wanted. He did get written up and introduced to the base chaplain post haste.

Second. You really should check your facts before you start ranting and stating your opinion as fact. Callie is correct that Christianity is chock full of passages that place the woman in the submissive position. BUT! Here’s a little secret. It was written at a time when that was what was believed and practiced! The Quran and the Bible were written by MEN during a time when MEN held the power - of course it was written to place women in the home, silent and obedient.

While I may get ripped apart for this, the Bible is not infallible because humans are not infallible. Neither is the Quran. They were both written by people who put their own twists on things, their own opinions on the issues at hand. Hell, the bible isn’t even everything it started out as! They actually held a meeting to decide which books made it into the bible (research it - Council of Nicea).

“In Islam, Muslim women are not allowed to marry anyone but a Muslim man. Period. Muslim men, however, are allowed to marry Muslim women, and women of the ‘People of the Book’ (ie Jews and Christians), as long as the man doesn’t place himself in an inferior position to that woman.”

Have a gander at this.

2 Corinthians 6:14 - 15 Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

1 Corinthians 7:16 “… how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

That’s just two passages in the Bible that state a Christian should not marry someone that is not Christian. So it is not just Islam that preaches against marrying someone of another faith.

And again, you cannot make a claim that every single Muslim in the word believes the same way. That is like saying every single Christian, every single Pagan, every single Jew, every single Buddhist believes the same way. It is unequivocally false.

As for the Bible’s words on men over women? Have a look.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children’ yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

1 Corinthians 11:9 For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for the man’s sake.

And Callie covered the whole they have the be silent in temple issue. Not too mention they weren’t even allowed in the temple during that time of month, nor where they allowed near their husbands.

Quote Mining is a very old tactic. Every religion is susceptible to those who only seek to make a point and ignore all parts of a religious text that don't support what they want to say.

Every religion has texts that can be easily explained in negativity, and every religion has its detractors who think ripping quotes out of context is a substitute for proper arguments. They're not. Especially not if they're from translations, which have often been made by those picking one meaning of words to make a political point, even if different meaning would more accurately convey the message being told.

Your argument is tradition is it? Well, in traditional Christian vows, the bride vows to honor and obey her husband. The groom vows to love and cherish his bride. Women used to be property. Some hardcore Christians still feel that way. Look at the Amish. They aren't at least a little sexist? The communities that are the least sexist are moderate Gee, there's that word again.

Adam was cast out of paradise with Eve because Eve was weak and gave into temptation. Man's troubles are all a woman's fault.

Christians who don't follow the scripture Callie posted are moderate Christians because they don't follow the Bible to the letter. Moderate Muslims don't follow the Quran to the letter either. The Bible has some pretty gruesome shit in it, but you seem to be hellbent on judging Muslims because of a handful of whakjobs.

A - Marriage: The Bible says that a believer should not (your words) be married to a non-believer. Key phrase there being should not. Islam does not allow Muslims to marry outside of their tenets without major repercussions.

To use a completely extreme example...Christianity is like a deep-fried Twinkie. You're not supposed to eat them since they're bad for you, but you can. Islam is walking on the sun - you simply can't do it.

B - Men & Women. The first verse was God cursing Adam and Eve for breaking his law and allowing sin to come into the world. It's meant to be a punishment, because now you ladies have to put up with us. The second verse is out of context. Women were created to be a complement to man, not as a servant. Women were the ideal companion to men.

@Serephino: Read the following.

Adam wasn't cast out of Eden because of Eve's failure. He was cast out because of his own failure, and then he tried to blame it on Eve who blamed it on the snake. Adam had a choice, he just made the wrong one. We dug our own hole, too.

I have no doubt that there are Muslims that don't follow the Quran verbatim. If there weren't, there probably wouldn't be as many Muslim converts. But whether or not there are Muslims who follow the Quran to the letter is not the debate here. It's that the Quran, the Islam holy text, endorses things that are at odds with the values of freedom and equality that Americans treasure.

Hopefully.

Spanish Inquisition & Crusades = Catholics. I'm a Protestant, they're not my people. Catholics have a history of building their church on blood.

Salem Witch Trials = Puritans. Which aren't around anymore, because their beliefs were antiquated.

And yes, this may be a back-at-you statement, but nowhere in the Bible does Jesus or any religious authority condone violence against non-believers.

Compared to, say, The Verse of the Sword.

And Hemingway is right. This isn't about religion, this is about civil liberties. Only reason this whole debate got started was because I said that the first targets of this new act are going to be foreign-born Muslims.

Second. You really should check your facts before you start ranting and stating your opinion as fact. Callie is correct that Christianity is chock full of passages that place the woman in the submissive position. BUT! Here’s a little secret. It was written at a time when that was what was believed and practiced! The Quran and the Bible were written by MEN during a time when MEN held the power - of course it was written to place women in the home, silent and obedient.

While I may get ripped apart for this, the Bible is not infallible because humans are not infallible. Neither is the Quran. They were both written by people who put their own twists on things, their own opinions on the issues at hand. Hell, the bible isn’t even everything it started out as! They actually held a meeting to decide which books made it into the bible (research it - Council of Nicea).

“In Islam, Muslim women are not allowed to marry anyone but a Muslim man. Period. Muslim men, however, are allowed to marry Muslim women, and women of the ‘People of the Book’ (ie Jews and Christians), as long as the man doesn’t place himself in an inferior position to that woman.”

Have a gander at this.

2 Corinthians 6:14 - 15 Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

1 Corinthians 7:16 “… how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

That’s just two passages in the Bible that state a Christian should not marry someone that is not Christian. So it is not just Islam that preaches against marrying someone of another faith.

And again, you cannot make a claim that every single Muslim in the word believes the same way. That is like saying every single Christian, every single Pagan, every single Jew, every single Buddhist believes the same way. It is unequivocally false.

As for the Bible’s words on men over women? Have a look.

Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children’ yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

1 Corinthians 11:9 For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but the woman for the man’s sake.

And Callie covered the whole they have the be silent in temple issue. Not too mention they weren’t even allowed in the temple during that time of month, nor where they allowed near their husbands.

Kind of off-topic but since the Bible is supposedly inspired and guided by the will of God and God's morality should then flow in it like water to be clearly seen and the ebbs and flows of it wouldn't it then be the true intent of God's morality and superior to all man has come to understand?

If so God is a monsterous thing the OT and Revelation are ripe with the horrors He encouraged in his name through his agents then I ask why are you worshipping this thing?

If not then why use the Bible as truth its not true if God can change his mind about morality and clearly that is the arguement being made by some people, well its different now its not then. Sorry if God is God his morality would be better than those we tried at Nuremburg for horrible actions. Yet he did order his people through prophets and judges to do horrible acts and did those acts himself?

Actually Muslims have the advantage in this Allah is God and well not nice, he can be merciful to the faithful or a horror to others as Allah chooses and loves mankind but will purge them of infidels at some point - as in usually a nice guy but can be a big dick at times.

Christianity asks for the submission of wives to their husbands, yes, but because that's what God asks of them. Not because men are somehow inherently superior to women.

The texts that Callie cited were all from Pastoral Epistle (except for Genesis, which is Old Testament, the part that was 'replaced' when Jesus Came, and Corinthians 14:34-35, which was most likely edited by the writer of the Pastoral Epistles to make them sound more like what he had to say.)

It's probably worthwhile to keep in mind that a lot of the New Testament is just "Here's a bunch of stuff the people who came before us had to say." The stuff in the Pastoral Epistles is sexist because the writer had a very sexist agenda.

Quote

2 Corinthians 6:14 - 15 Do not be bound together with unbelievers, for what a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

1 Corinthians 7:16 “… how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

the 1 Corinthians Note is the opposite of the 2 Corinthians quote. In the latter, Paul is explaining that believers should not divorce if they're married to unbelievers.

Quote from: 1 Corinthians 7:12-16

12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

1 Corinthians also explains at length that Christians shouldn't marry at all if they can help it, and marriage is only for people who can't control their urges. Paul's Epistles are written under the assumption that Christ's return is imminent, so the idea that he needs his congregation to do silly things like 'procreate' isn't something he seems to worry about too much.

"And Hemingway is right. This isn't about religion, this is about civil liberties. Only reason this whole debate got started was because I said that the first targets of this new act are going to be foreign-born Muslims."

Only reason anything was said about religion is because of the blatant hatred for Islam that was displayed in your posts, to which replies were made that you cannot blame every Muslim for the actions of the extremists, that you cannot state opnion as fact and that Islam is not the only religion with biased and violent views.

"If so God is a monsterous thing the OT and Revelation are ripe with the horrors He encouraged in his name through his agents then I ask why are you worshipping this thing?"

I have never once stated what my religious views are in this thread, but for clarifications sake, I am an ordained High Priestess of Asatru. Neither Christian nor Muslim though I do preach tolerance of all religions.

Back OT, Callie you have the right of it, and sadly, this has been happening for a long time - the slow but steady whittling away at our rights - and it will continue to happen because we are encouraged to care more about what the Kardashians are doing, who's going to the super bowl, what's happening with the Jersey Shore group than what is going on in our Capitol. The more they can distract us, the more they can take away from us till we wake up one day with no liberties, no rights.

IMO, while Catholicism and Protestantism are both Christianity, it's not the same thing. For one thing, Protestants don't have a Pope (who is supposedly infallible, despite him being born a man), nor do we have a bunch of old traditions that are, by the Bible's reckoning, entirely unnecessary.

I've talked to Protestants who were former Catholics, and they say it is a different culture.

IMO, while Catholicism and Protestantism are both Christianity, it's not the same thing. For one thing, Protestants don't have a Pope (who is supposedly infallible, despite him being born a man), nor do we have a bunch of old traditions that are, by the Bible's reckoning, entirely unnecessary.

I've talked to Protestants who were former Catholics, and they say it is a different culture.

Yet almost all the most vehement adherents to the 'authenticity' of the bible in the US tend to be protestants. Most of the most Conservative Christians I grew up with were Methodist or Baptist.

I grew up in the South most of my life, but I was confirmed in the Church of Ireland or as an Episcopalian as they are known in the US. At the same time I went to an Irish Catholic public school (It was in the 70s/80s). The culture between the two isn't as radially different as you think.

That being said, having gone to Episcopal and Presbyterian services in the US, there is a different from the few Lutheran and Baptist services I attended.

Same applies to the many strains of Islam that are as fundamentally different as Calvinism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Catholicism and even the more extreme sects. Christianity has its extreme and moderate sects, the same applies to Islam, Judaism, and any other religion with more than a few hundred adherents. Just because you are more aware of the different strains of Christianity doesn't mean it's the only religion with such varied readings of the same work.

I've read the Quran. Not from cover to cover, but enough to know that as a whole, it doesn't concern itself with the issues you ascribe to it overly much. It espouses many of the same virtues as the Bible. It even includes the Christmas story (which was very enjoyable to read from the perspective of the Islam.)

The Quran also denies the divinity of Jesus, claiming that he was just a man like Moses or Muhammad - a prophet, a wise teacher. And in the words of CS Lewis: "Let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

And by Christianity's system, you can be a virtuous person, but it doesn't matter how virtuous if you don't believe Jesus is who he said he was.